Censoring Science Won’t Make Us Any Safer
In the article “Censoring Science Won’t Make Us Any Safer,” Laura K. Donohue writes the increased governmental restrictions on science could be harmful to the human race.about Throughout the article she makes many points that are very persuasive to those who easily overlook the logical fallacies, and over dramatization. Donohue shows many signs of using the scare tactic, as well as not using actual sources to back her argument.
In the article Donohoe claimed that censoring science slows scientific advancement. Keeping secrets and failing to share information and materials could put the United States in danger and unable to protect citizens from dangerous materials (Marshall). The United States government
…show more content…
does tend to censor scientific advancements from the American people. For example, when global warming was first proposed the government quickly turned it into a political debate whether it is real or not. While we may know what would happen if we continue to let global warming go on, without the support of people and the government we may not be able to prevent it before it does start to harm us (censoring science; inside the political attack on Dr. James Hansen and the truth of global warming.). The author does have a great understanding of the issue she is arguing. She makes it less effective when making claims without sources. Donohue uses the scare tactic fallacy in order to get the reader on her side.
The scare tactic is used to strike fear in the reader in order to scare them away from the other side of the argument. One of the first arguments the author made in the essay is when Donohue talks about the possibility of terrorist having access to poison and they could easily contaminate innocent civilians. The scare tactic is used frequently in order to scare people onto a side of an argument. This is a very effective way to get people on your side, however, more times than not, the argument will come off a lot worse than it actually …show more content…
is. While the scare tactic used seemed effective, the probability of terrorists being able to get ahold of these kinds of dangerous materials is slim to none.
The author does not use any factual evidence that is supported by a strong source. Without using a source it is hard to believe the author is telling a true story or has evidence. She automatically assumes that these terrorists have the labs, technology, and money needed in order to get a hold of these dangerous substances, as well as they have enough power and resources to get them out to a wide majority of people. She does all of this without using any evidence that this is an actually concern, only an idea or possibility this could be going on.
She then goes on to talk about a museum where kids are allowed to do online experiments with molecular biology as if this fake simulation is on the same severity level as scientists not having the information needed to protect us from these substances. It is very possible the test tube the child is emailed to look at could not be accurate, only to be an example. It is very possible the website used to see the test tubes uses the same test tube for everyone since the majority of people will not know the difference or if it is
correct. In another portion of the reading, the author talks about a mousepox in Australia in which the poison these scientists use every so often to kill the abundance of mice is highly dangerous and since the information is out, terrorist groups have this information and can use it in multiple ways. Despite the already stated fact that the terrorists may not have the ability to get ahold of this, the mousepox vaccine is too closely related to smallpox. At some points in the reading the author seems to almost switch sides, as if science is not censored enough. With the girl and the museum it seems like she does not like that there is a possibility a child may know of or how to create a dangerous substance that could be harmful to many humans. The title does state that censoring science is not good for us, however, she makes claims and uses supporting details that make it seem she feels the opposite. Much of the arguments the author uses in this reading are not supported by any factual evidence. She assumes most of her arguments as well as uses fallacies in order to scare the reader into believing her and supporting her claim. Although there is some good evidence used, the majority of the reading was just her personal thoughts and opinions, therefore, extremely hard to believe to be true.
Clay Dillow’s “To Catch a Bombmaker” was published by Popular Science in October 2015. This article educated the reader about the FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center— a key aspect in the fight against terrorism. Dillow focused on ethos and logos to strengthen the validation of his claim concerning the importance of the TEDAC and was successful in persuading the reader to believe in its significance as well. He used expert quotes from FBI agents to give the article credibility; In addition, he presented statistical data in a clear and concise manner and gave many factual cases in which the TEDAC facilitated the government in their pursuit of terrorist and bomb makers. As proven by Dillow in “How to Catch a Bombmaker,” the Terrorist
Arthur L. Caplan, in his news article, “Distinguishing Science from Nonsense,” warns the audience about the uncertain economic future of the United States of America due to the abandonment of science within society. Further, Caplan’s purpose is to inform the audience how the dwindling importance of science in children is not only due to schools, but also due to American culture. Therefore, Caplan uses a combination of rhetorical devices to not only warn and inform the public about the importance of science, but to also engage them to an extent that persuades the audience to take action.
The article, “Motivated Rejection of Science” stood out to me because the vast amount of scientific research to back up findings and the vast majority of the population that rejects it. Lewandowsky and Oberauer discuss the prevalence of false beliefs in the general population. They bring up the popular conspiracy theories that have either false or no scientific research, plaguing the minds of many. When the majority of the general population believe in a certain theory – like the vaccines that are ‘linked’ to measles, Autism, mumps, and rubella – the effects can be detrimental. The vaccine craze was felt worldwide and is the best example of misinformation.
...om society. Although Bishop makes no excuses for the shortcomings of science and academia, he delivers an ominous message to those who would attack the scientific community: Science is the future. Learn to embrace it or be left behind.
In her essay "Science, Facts, and Feminism" Ruth Hubbard makes many claims in relating her opinions about the relationship between men and women in society as well as the role science plays in this relationship and the balance of power in the world. One of her claims states that "the pretense that science is objective, apolitical and value-neutral is profoundly political because it obscures the political role that science and technology play in underwriting the existing distribution of power in society." In essence, she is saying that it is ridiculous to claim that science is an objective look at the world around us because science is constantly affected by society and the political establishment. I agree that it is impossible to claim that science is in every way separate from politics and power because those types of people who created the political world also created the scientific world to supplement and support it. For example, the government, a political and power establishment, created the Manhattan Project and put a huge amount of funding into a scientific project that produced the atomic bomb.
The author’s first reasoning to help support his claim was “Censorship can also protect us from the circulation of dangerous information.” Another reasoning the author had stated was “It is also wrong for information that is false or misleading to be easily available for anyone to find.” The author gives logical reasoning to support his claim, but does not give sufficient support. Not only does the author give insufficient support, but he also doesn’t organize the passage clearly, so that the reader can understand his reasoning clearly.
Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. New York: St. Martins, 1997, 230-235. Thomas, Lewis "The Hazards of Science" The Presence of Others. Comp. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz.
Aldridge, Alexandra. The Scientific World View in Dystopia. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1984.
Schep, L, Temple, W. & Beasley, M. (2009). Racin as a weapon of mass terror-separating fact
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
Teachers suspended, radio and television personalities fired, authors disinvited to speaking events, all because their words, opinions or shows did not agree with what a handful of people consider appropriate. One would think these types of situations regarding censorship happened decades ago, not in a time now, where people pride themselves on having an open-mind and the ability of forward thinking. However, censorship still prevails in America today, and not only censorship of pornography or violence on television, but it seeps into our textbooks and classrooms too, all in the name of protecting the children.
Donahue believes that censoring science is putting the United States at the same risk as not censoring. The author states “the effort to suppress scientific information reflects a dangerously outdated attitude.” Donahue supports this claim by explaining several cases in science where sharing information on microbiological studies have helped science move forward. The author mentions an article that was published describing how susceptible the United States milk supply is to the botulinum toxin. This article was suspended by the National Academy of Science because they believed it to be a “road map for terrorists” (p. 1). The author believes however, that instead of censoring such an article this information should be shared, this way other scientists will be able to discover ways to defend against terrorist attacks.
Broyles, Janell. Chemical and Biological Weapons in a Post-9/11 World. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2005. Print.
The Fear of Science To live in the today's world is to be surrounded by the products of science. For it is science that gave our society color television, the bottle of aspirin, and the polyester shirt. Thus, science has greatly enhanced our society; yet, our society is still afraid of the effects of science. This fear of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century, where scientists had to be secretive in experimenting with science. Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty of the results of science.
...y (Riesch 771). This influence manifests itself in many different aspects of public life, from affecting which medical treatments individuals choose to seek to influencing their stance on controversial political topics such as climate change or nuclear energy; thus science journalism is an endeavor which entails significant ethical responsibilities, the most significant of which is striving for accuracy and appropriate contextualization. Additionally, through negatively impacting public opinion of science, bad science journalism has the potential to discourage private and government funding of research; it is for these reasons that science journalists are forced to bear the weight not only of the effect their writing will have on the public, but also the effect that the consequential public opinion of science will have on the scientific community (LaFollette 13).